Should we abolish Nuclear weapons?
This poll is closed
Should we abolish nuclear weapons?
Yes 32%
No68%
Total votes: 25
I personally think it is not right for us to hold weapons of mass destruction. There are no winners in nuclear war, and such a war could end the world as we know it.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
I agree. Holding weapons of mass destruction will not only wreck a country but will also wreck millions of people’s life’s. Innocent civilians have to suffer because of nuclear weapon threats and two stupid idiots dare I say Trump and Kim-Jon Un or whatever his name is. I live in Scotland, we have nuclear weapons like 50 miles away and I’m worried about a war starting here as one leak or one hit and we’re all dead o.o
The way humanity is going, I would welcome a nuclear war right about now!
Original post by imjessiegee
I agree. Holding weapons of mass destruction will not only wreck a country but will also wreck millions of people’s life’s. Innocent civilians have to suffer because of nuclear weapon threats and two stupid idiots dare I say Trump and Kim-Jon Un or whatever his name is. I live in Scotland, we have nuclear weapons like 50 miles away and I’m worried about a war starting here as one leak or one hit and we’re all dead o.o
Well said
And also the idea that having nuclear weapons actually prevents tensions is ridiculous. When you study history you can see that tensions are mostly between two nuclear states, e.g USA and USSR, and USA and the developing nuclear state of North Korea. Most countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons including very developed countries. I don't see most of them being threatened in any way.
Original post by SCIENCE :D
The way humanity is going, I would welcome a nuclear war right about now!
Be careful what you wish for.
We should but they are used as a deterrent to stop nuclear war. The problem is if a country is put in a situation where they consider firing nuclear weapons then having nuclear weapons and the risk of returning arms makes them less likely to fire them in the first place. So unless all nuclear weapons are destroyed in a safe way and no country ever makes anymore they are hear to stay.
Original post by JMR2017
Well said
And also the idea that having nuclear weapons actually prevents tensions is ridiculous. When you study history you can see that tensions are mostly between two nuclear states, e.g USA and USSR, and USA and the developing nuclear state of North Korea. Most countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons including very developed countries. I don't see most of them being threatened in any way.
And also the idea that having nuclear weapons actually prevents tensions is ridiculous. When you study history you can see that tensions are mostly between two nuclear states, e.g USA and USSR, and USA and the developing nuclear state of North Korea. Most countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons including very developed countries. I don't see most of them being threatened in any way.
That’s what I think also, if your in possession of nuclear weapons your most likely going to face some sort of threat from another country yet without them there’s less chances of being threatened because you’ve got nothing to threaten back with.
Ok. You first.
Point being, it doesn't work that way. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, you can't uninvent them. How do you make someone like North Korea or Iran just 'decide' to give them up when they've spent years and billions developing them?
It's a complete fantasy to think they'll just be abolished.
Point being, it doesn't work that way. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, you can't uninvent them. How do you make someone like North Korea or Iran just 'decide' to give them up when they've spent years and billions developing them?
It's a complete fantasy to think they'll just be abolished.
Original post by JMR2017
Well said
And also the idea that having nuclear weapons actually prevents tensions is ridiculous. When you study history you can see that tensions are mostly between two nuclear states, e.g USA and USSR, and USA and the developing nuclear state of North Korea. Most countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons including very developed countries. I don't see most of them being threatened in any way.
And also the idea that having nuclear weapons actually prevents tensions is ridiculous. When you study history you can see that tensions are mostly between two nuclear states, e.g USA and USSR, and USA and the developing nuclear state of North Korea. Most countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons including very developed countries. I don't see most of them being threatened in any way.
but it isn't ridiculous. Why wouldn't you fire at an enemy that won't fight back? It's like bullying. You generally don't attack the tall muscular people that can hurt you back but the small person that wouldn't attack would probably be bullied.
definitely not. a world where states have nuclear weapons is a much safer world.
there has only been one direct conflict between nations that mutually held nukes, and due to that very factor, the conflict was extremely short lived (the indo-pak war of the late 90s) also: thanks to nukes, the soviet union and the US, obviously, didn't fight each other. that's a good thing seeing as they could have easily fought openly due to disagreements over europe post-WWII. if you're anti-nuke, you're pro-war. simple as that in my mind.
there has only been one direct conflict between nations that mutually held nukes, and due to that very factor, the conflict was extremely short lived (the indo-pak war of the late 90s) also: thanks to nukes, the soviet union and the US, obviously, didn't fight each other. that's a good thing seeing as they could have easily fought openly due to disagreements over europe post-WWII. if you're anti-nuke, you're pro-war. simple as that in my mind.
Original post by imjessiegee
That’s what I think also, if your in possession of nuclear weapons your most likely going to face some sort of threat from another country yet without them there’s less chances of being threatened because you’ve got nothing to threaten back with.
UK. Has nuclear weapons. No threat from a country.
Ukraine. Had nuclear weapons. Was safe. Gave them up. Got invaded by Russia.
Your point?
Original post by SCIENCE :D
The way humanity is going, I would welcome a nuclear war right about now!
I totally get where your coming from dude. All this ISIS, hunger and cruelty to animals is practically killing me inside. Although I wouldn’t wish a nuclear war on any country. Wouldn’t want to leave my loved ones in such a tragic circumstance and life would cease to exist.
Original post by Drewski
Ok. You first.
Point being, it doesn't work that way. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, you can't uninvent them. How do you make someone like North Korea or Iran just 'decide' to give them up when they've spent years and billions developing them?
It's a complete fantasy to think they'll just be abolished.
Point being, it doesn't work that way. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, you can't uninvent them. How do you make someone like North Korea or Iran just 'decide' to give them up when they've spent years and billions developing them?
It's a complete fantasy to think they'll just be abolished.
Have an organisation like the U.N make every country unilaterally disarm and then create a global independent body making sure that no country develops them again.
Original post by JMR2017
Have an organisation like the U.N make every country unilaterally disarm and then create a global independent body making sure that no country develops them again.
How?
That's what the test ban treaty was about.
Then countries left.
It's a toothless organisation. Redundant.
Original post by Drewski
UK. Has nuclear weapons. No threat from a country.
Ukraine. Had nuclear weapoins. Was safe. Gave them up. Got invaded by Russia.
Your point?
Ukraine. Had nuclear weapoins. Was safe. Gave them up. Got invaded by Russia.
Your point?
With Theresa May in power we’re more likely to be threatened very soon. Once Kim-Jon Un is done with USA, he’ll probably be hitting us next....
Original post by JMR2017
Be careful what you wish for.
You think I'm joking.
Original post by Drewski
How?
That's what the test ban treaty was about.
Then countries left.
It's a toothless organisation. Redundant.
That's what the test ban treaty was about.
Then countries left.
It's a toothless organisation. Redundant.
Just create a global independent body making sure that no new weapons are developed after disarmament. Besides most countries do not have nuclear weapons and I don't see most of them under threat.
Original post by imjessiegee
With Theresa May in power we’re more likely to be threatened very soon. Once Kim-Jon Un is done with USA, he’ll probably be hitting us next....
And also, the ‘UK’ aka England are storing their nuclear weapons in Scotland. Hoping Nicola Sturgeon has a vote on them being taking back out down to that hell hole.
Original post by imjessiegee
With Theresa May in power we’re more likely to be threatened very soon. Once Kim-Jon Un is done with USA, he’ll probably be hitting us next....
That makes no sense whatsoever.
How has May invited any threat? What's she done on an international stage?
Why would North Korea attack a county on the opposite side of the planet that is no direct threat to it?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
